Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24898)
Facts:
Go Oh et al. v. Martiniano Vivo et al., G.R. No. L-24898, March 31, 1971, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Go Oh and her four minor children (Helen, James, William and Henry, all surnamed Gooh) arrived in the Philippines from Hong Kong on January 1, 1962, holding Philippine Consulate-issued certificates of registration and identity Nos. 1061–1065. On August 2, 1962, a Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) of the Bureau of Immigration conducted an investigation into their political status and, on September 8, 1962, rendered a written decision excluding them for failure to prove a claim to Philippine citizenship. The BSI based its exclusion on doubts about petitioners' proofs (including changes of names and birth-record discrepancies) and on a conclusion that petitioner Go Oh was likely a Chinese subject by marriage.
The Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration, composed of respondents Martiniano Vivo, Virgilio Gaston and Marcial Ranola, reviewed the BSI proceedings motu proprio and, by vote on December 20, 1962, affirmed the BSI decision; a written Decision and a Warrant of Exclusion dated December 20, 1962 were prepared and later forwarded. Petitioners, however, did not receive notice of these actions until a letter dated September 20, 1963 from the Secretary of the Board of Commissioners enclosing the December 20, 1962 decision.
On September 28, 1963 petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance (trial court) of Manila to annul the decisions of the BSI and the Board of Commissioners and to prevent respondents from arresting or excluding them. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction on October 11, 1963 and, after proceedings, on July 15, 1965 rendered judgment granting the petition: it declared both administrative decisions null and void, permanently enjoined respondents from excluding petitioners, and made the preliminary injunction permanent.
Respondents appealed from the decision of the Court of First Instance to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether (1) petitioners were ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were petitioners denied due process when they were not served with the Board of Special Inquiry’s decision before the Board of Commissioners reviewed and affirmed it motu proprio?
- Did the Board of Commissioners act in excess of its jurisdiction by reviewing and affirming the Board of Special Inquiry’s decision (i.e., did the motu proprio review occur within the one-...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)